I'm a newbie and just jumped into digital photography and I have bought FZ8 camera and really like it only to discover that manual controls are not driven by focus ring but instead is driven by joystick which I think is not flexible at all. I'm thinking of returning the FZ8 to get FZ50 which has all I can think of with regard to manual focus and zoom. I may use the built in scene modes to begin with but in the long run, manual operations (zoom and focus) are the way to go to get complete control on the output. I'm also carefully reading the noise issues above ISO200 with FZ8 and FZ50 cameras and also read that by setting the NR to Low, some of the Venus Engine III havoc can be reduced. The only thing that is holding off my purchase of FZ50 is the small 2.0'' LCD. Do you guys think that 2.0'' is way too small to see thru it?

Here are my questions:

1. Is there a super zoom camera that is similar in specs as FZ50 (OIS, optical zoom, RAW, 2.5'' LCD etc) apart from FZ8?

2. I don't want to jump into the DSLR market as it is way too tedious to change lens, dust issues etc.

3. I also wanted to get 28mm or less on the wide angle along with ultra macro mode on the telephoto side (will Rayonex help)?

4. Finally, if I set the aspect ratio to 16:9 on the FZ50 and attach the Rayonex or Panasonic Wide Angle converter (DMW-LW55), does it give me anamorphic like view? What I really want is very similar to Panasonic ?TZ3 (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panas ... ge3c.shtml) and the following paragraph specifies:

"Normally if you are using a camera with a 4:3 shaped sensor and switch to a wider aspect ratio, the camera would simply crop strips from the top and bottom, thereby both reducing the resolution and the angle of view. Not so with the TZ3 which maintains its 7.2 Megapixel resolution on both the 4:3 and 3:2 aspect images and its angle of view on 4:3, 3:2 and wide 16:9 images."

Is TZ3 delivering anamorphic like view?

Finally, what are the required or the most recommended accessories for FZ50 and what is the difference between Telephoto lens (DMW-LT55) vs Close Up lens (DMW-LC55) and what is the best one for FZ50? Is there a alternative (cheaper and great quality) from third party products?

Could you please reply to enable me to make a decision on my purchase. I'm very interested in your comment on the TZ3 with 16:9 and make it work the same with FZ50 with 16:9 along with a wide angle converter.

perhaps I can at least answer some of your questions...
But first a question for you: What do you mean by "anamorphic": 16:9?
As Gordon puts it: The TZ3 has a sensor-format that is optimized for 16:9 recording, so it does not reduce the number of pixels when you switch from 4:3 or 3:2 to 16:9. Is that what you meant?
I think some Panasonic cameras are quite unique in their combination of a zoom starting at 28mm (film-equivalent), IS and 16:9 mode that is reflected in the sensor and the display. Unfortunately the FZ-50 does not have these three features. And "no", you cannot go anamorphic by using a wide-angle converter on the FZ50.
And the difference between a tele-converter and a close-up lens is, that the tele-converter enlarges your image from near up to infinity whereas the close-up lens only lets you focus closer (and no longer to infinity) and thus magnifies things if you (can) get really close.

perhaps I can at least answer some of your questions...But first a question for you: What do you mean by "anamorphic": 16:9?As Gordon puts it: The TZ3 has a sensor-format that is optimized for 16:9 recording, so it does not reduce the number of pixels when you switch from 4:3 or 3:2 to 16:9. Is that what you meant?I think some Panasonic cameras are quite unique in their combination of a zoom starting at 28mm (film-equivalent), IS and 16:9 mode that is reflected in the sensor and the display. Unfortunately the FZ-50 does not have these three features. And "no", you cannot go anamorphic by using a wide-angle converter on the FZ50.And the difference between a tele-converter and a close-up lens is, that the tele-converter enlarges your image from near up to infinity whereas the close-up lens only lets you focus closer (and no longer to infinity) and thus magnifies things if you (can) get really close.

Hope that helps a little...

Hi,

Thanks for your excellent reply.

As you had mentioned, the sensor on TZ3 is also optimized for 16:9 shots, my question was since FZ50 is not optimized for that, by adding a third party converter (Raynox, or any other company's product), will I be able to duplicate the same thing on FZ50? I don't mind spending few extra dollars to get that functionality. My intent is to always shoot in 16:9 mode without loss of pixels. If it is not possible with FZ50 even with adding third party product, can you suggest me some other cameras that are optimized for 16:9 shots (with no loss in pixels)? You have mentioned some Panasonic cameras have this unique combination. Can you suggest me the model numbers? Even if it is available with different brands and not Panasonic ones, I'm happy to take it.

Finally, what I discovered is TZ3 image quality is not equal to FZ50 image quality and thats the reason I was leaning towards FZ50 which has excellent manual controls.

On the close-up/telephoto lens, which is the best one to do macro (as close as 1cm) without getting closer to the object?

Well, dc_newbie, the Pana LX2 also is optimized for 16:9 with it's 10MP sensor and the LCD-Display and starts at 28mm wide-angle (film-equivalent) too. See Gordon's review here: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panas ... ndex.shtml. I think this is a very nice camera.
It even has a physically larger sensor than the FX50, which means it can capture a little more light. Only thing is that you are restricted to a 4x zoom. And sorry, but no add-on lenses.

As to your close-up-lens vs. tele-converter question for the FZ50, I'm not sure. But I believe that the greater magnification can be had with the close-up lens. Although to be honest, I suspect that it doesn't bring you much more than going to the closest 5cm distance at wide-angle.

Well, dc_newbie, the Pana LX2 also is optimized for 16:9 with it's 10MP sensor and the LCD-Display and starts at 28mm wide-angle (film-equivalent) too. See Gordon's review here: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panas ... ndex.shtml. I think this is a very nice camera.It even has a physically larger sensor than the FX50, which means it can capture a little more light. Only thing is that you are restricted to a 4x zoom. And sorry, but no add-on lenses.

As to your close-up-lens vs. tele-converter question for the FZ50, I'm not sure. But I believe that the greater magnification can be had with the close-up lens. Although to be honest, I suspect that it doesn't bring you much more than going to the closest 5cm distance at wide-angle.

Hi again,

Thanks for your reply.

So, there is no other brand (apart from Panasonic) that is optimized for 16:9, manual controls etc. ?

Well, dc_newbie, the Pana LX2 also is optimized for 16:9 with it's 10MP sensor and the LCD-Display and starts at 28mm wide-angle (film-equivalent) too. See Gordon's review here: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panas ... ndex.shtml. I think this is a very nice camera.It even has a physically larger sensor than the FX50, which means it can capture a little more light. Only thing is that you are restricted to a 4x zoom. And sorry, but no add-on lenses.

As to your close-up-lens vs. tele-converter question for the FZ50, I'm not sure. But I believe that the greater magnification can be had with the close-up lens. Although to be honest, I suspect that it doesn't bring you much more than going to the closest 5cm distance at wide-angle.

Hi again,

Thanks for your reply.

So, there is no other brand (apart from Panasonic) that is optimized for 16:9, manual controls etc. ?

Nothing in specific. I always like 16:9 and planning to get a plasma TV pretty soon. But, how about this: On FZ50, when I set it to 16:9 mode, the max pixels I get is 7M. This is better than FZ8's 5M when set to 16:9. How does this compare to LX2's native 16:9 sensor and 10M pixels?
Also, does FZ50 display change on the LCD to 16:9 like display?

The reason I asked about your choice of aspect ratio is that I think to start out with an image that shape limits your crop possibilities. I can see how it might be convenient to be able to plug the camera into a widescreen TV and have it fill the screen but I'd be reluctant to buy a camera on this basis. There are far more important things to get right, imo.

The Canons >=7MP always cut pixels away at 16:9 mode. So they only have reduced Mega-pixels at 16:9, not the full number!

As to Zorro's remarks: I constantly have the problem how to crop my pics:
1. 4:3 for my computer-monitor 2. DIN (2.8:2) for printing 3. 3:2 as the original is 4. 16:10 as with the new 1980x1200 monitors 5. 16:9 as is optimal for presenting on my LCD-TV This is really, really annoying

If you just focus on presentation on 16:9 LCD-TV, I can perfectly understand that people are looking for something that gives them this format from the beginning. This is the easiest way.

But, DavidL, as no display really delivers a 1:1 pixel-mapping it is quite irrelevant how you crop your photos quality-wise. So in the end you don't really lose quality when you buy the FZ-50 and switch it (or any other camera) to 16:9. Be warned though, that it is quite challenging sometimes to compose a picture for 16:9!